By Olyy
#40614
Feels like six down to three is what they give out for everything these days,


Can we sign Denny back on a three week deal?

Be interesting to see what Axe does with the back 3 - I'd be tempted to go for Double James in the midfield and put Rohan on the wing
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#40616
He has got off lightly. I don't want to attack Byron, but I don't think the panel are sending the right message with that. He lost it so completely but got his ban halved essentially because he said sorry. I think they should have acknowledged his remorse and previous good character but not allowed that to eradicate so much of the punishment, max 2-week reduction, more like just 1 and would be justified in giving no reduction at all.

Sorry, Byron, I still love you, but that was ridiculous.
Olyy liked this
By Olyy
#40618
poyntonshark wrote:
Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:14 pm
He has got off lightly. I don't want to attack Byron, but I don't think the panel are sending the right message with that. He lost it so completely but got his ban halved essentially because he said sorry. I think they should have acknowledged his remorse and previous good character but not allowed that to eradicate so much of the punishment, max 2-week reduction, more like just 1 and would be justified in giving no reduction at all.
Yeah, I don't agree with the mitigation process - IMO it should be time added for repeat offenders, but the minimum is the minimum.
Seems like everyone who says sorry and wears a nice tie to the hearing gets it halved, these day - only one i can remember that didn't was Mike Williams who accepted no responsibility for his red card clearout a few weeks back
DaveAitch liked this
By RinTin
#40660
He grabbed Tompkins and threw him around. No tip onto the head, no punches, and it was likely argued that a Saracens push was the reason the second throw looked worse. Other mitigating factor was the Tompkins goading combined with the high emotion at that point in the game (just after the Maitland goad).

I completely agree that he lost it, but he was restrained enough to keep it to pushing and shoving without throwing any punches. 3 weeks isn't unreasonable to me.
DavenportSharky, WillC liked this
By chris1850
#40662
Agreed. It was gratifying to see Maitland penalised for 'unsportsmanlike behaviour ' shortly before, which provoked a response from Akker, though fortunately not on the scale of Byrons subsequent reaction. However, it is quite clear that Tompkins behaviour was equally unsportsmanlike and should also have been sanctioned.

To be clear, Byrons actions were over the top and he deserved everything he got. However Sarries constant goading and provocations in every match they play needs to be firmly stamped out. It is unpleasant gamesmanship at best, outright conscious cheating at worst.

On the occasions that we have been guilty of similar behaviour, and Byron is our main culprit, I hope the referee and RFU authorities would be equally intolerant
DavenportSharky liked this
By dinogyro
#40678
We really have to get a grip on our discipline. Unfortunately, Sale are 'known' for it, so we're already under suspicion before anything even happens. I was surprised we didn't get a team yellow for persistent offences. If we could sort that out, the scrum, the lineout and handling errors in the 22, we could be champions!
By LJK
#40690
I am sure Alex may well have said more both to the press and certainly to the player, but the reported BBC website comments that Byron's training regime background, may have led to the offence, seem to Joe Public to be almost forgiving him. To me he needed to be seen as far less 'undertanding' and more critical of a double dose of gross error of judgement.
By JohnJ of HM
#40695
dinogyro wrote:
Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:04 pm
We really have to get a grip on our discipline. Unfortunately, Sale are 'known' for it, so we're already under suspicion before anything even happens. I was surprised we didn't get a team yellow for persistent offences. If we could sort that out, the scrum, the lineout and handling errors in the 22, we could be champions!
Hear Hear about most of those though according to BT we have the best line-out in the league. Possibly because Akker's not been playing much.
By Olyy
#40806
Saracens have been penalised four times for dissent in the first 50mins vs Exeter
Hopefully means that the referees have drawn a line under their shenanigans
By chris1850
#40809
Trouble is that after the 3rd time Pearce warned Wray that next time, player would be off. Mako then commits 4th dissent offence and Pearce only awards a penalty.

Saracens prove again what an unpleasant group of players they are though, with Billy V at the fore this week. Apart from Bristol, there isn't a team I enjoy seeing lose more
By dinogyro
#40813
It was close for me. I don't like Saracens or Exeter. In the end, I think I dislike Saracens more. I loved Bristol for the last couple of seasons, but Pat Lam has got very annoying. Also, they are not playing the same way as before, which has made it less entertaining to watch.
By dinogyro
#40814
I also wondered if the Saracens 'reverse caterpillar' was a special sign to Alex Sanderson? They only did it once today. Did they think it up specially to rile undermine him?
By ageinghoody
#40828
chris1850 wrote:
Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:11 pm
Trouble is that after the 3rd time Pearce warned Wray that next time, player would be off. Mako then commits 4th dissent offence and Pearce only awards a penalty.

Saracens prove again what an unpleasant group of players they are though, with Billy V at the fore this week. Apart from Bristol, there isn't a team I enjoy seeing lose more
I thought it was " ... that player ..." and "... off if he does it again", specifically meaning Billy.
By chris1850
#40860
ageinghoody wrote:
Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:54 pm
chris1850 wrote:
Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:11 pm
Trouble is that after the 3rd time Pearce warned Wray that next time, player would be off. Mako then commits 4th dissent offence and Pearce only awards a penalty.

Saracens prove again what an unpleasant group of players they are though, with Billy V at the fore this week. Apart from Bristol, there isn't a team I enjoy seeing lose more
I thought it was " ... that player ..." and "... off if he does it again", specifically meaning Billy.
OK.Fair enough, you may be right. I do wish referees would be much firmer about it though and I think it is reasonable to give the captain a team warning that if any player shows dissent for the rest of the game, they go to the bin.
ageinghoody liked this
By Bronzbronx
#40880
dinogyro wrote:
Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:43 pm
I also wondered if the Saracens 'reverse caterpillar' was a special sign to Alex Sanderson? They only did it once today. Did they think it up specially to rile undermine him?
Exeter utilise big caterpillars so perhaps Sarries creepy caterpiller may be less effective?
By Olyy
#40932
dinogyro wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:27 pm
Yes, that does make sense. I still don't like it, but I can't think of a way of preventing either type.
Start enforcing the 5 second rule from when the ball is placed by the ball carrier - referees (if they do ever decide to enforce it) usually do so when the ball is available for the 9, ignoring the 25minutes of slowly rolling it down the tunnel of half the squads legs

Also stricter enforcing of binding to the ruck - there was a picture of an Exeter caterpillar from this weekend and the first player just had one hand on the original ruck, meaning technically the ball had been out the whole time
User avatar
By Yareet
#40939
Olyy wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:00 pm
dinogyro wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:27 pm
Yes, that does make sense. I still don't like it, but I can't think of a way of preventing either type.
Start enforcing the 5 second rule from when the ball is placed by the ball carrier - referees (if they do ever decide to enforce it) usually do so when the ball is available for the 9, ignoring the 25minutes of slowly rolling it down the tunnel of half the squads legs

Also stricter enforcing of binding to the ruck - there was a picture of an Exeter caterpillar from this weekend and the first player just had one hand on the original ruck, meaning technically the ball had been out the whole time
Wasn’t that the Exeter ruck that AJ kicked the ball from?

And the 5-second law is specifically outlined as being from when the ball is playable

https://www.laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15&language=EN
By Olyy
#40940
Yareet wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:24 pm
Olyy wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:00 pm
dinogyro wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:27 pm
Yes, that does make sense. I still don't like it, but I can't think of a way of preventing either type.
Start enforcing the 5 second rule from when the ball is placed by the ball carrier - referees (if they do ever decide to enforce it) usually do so when the ball is available for the 9, ignoring the 25minutes of slowly rolling it down the tunnel of half the squads legs

Also stricter enforcing of binding to the ruck - there was a picture of an Exeter caterpillar from this weekend and the first player just had one hand on the original ruck, meaning technically the ball had been out the whole time
Wasn’t that the Exeter ruck that AJ kicked the ball from?

And the 5-second law is specifically outlined as being from when the ball is playable

https://www.laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15&language=EN
Very similar - but this one was definitely from this weekend, hopefully more teams keep their eyes open to who is/isn't part of the ruck

I'd say the ball is playable at any point it's rolling down the corridor of players, tbh, so ref should count down ASAP
By Carlos
#40957
Isn't the easy answer that the referee calls the ruck once it's formed, and no one else joins?

Or is that opening up other problems elsewhere?

Problem with any changes is that it's never two dimensional, change X so Y always causes Z.
User avatar
By Yareet
#40959
Carlos wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:53 pm
Isn't the easy answer that the referee calls the ruck once it's formed, and no one else joins?

Or is that opening up other problems elsewhere?

Problem with any changes is that it's never two dimensional, change X so Y always causes Z.
For starters, that would almost completely prohibit counter rucking of slow ball.
By Carlos
#40960
Yareet wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:18 pm
Carlos wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:53 pm
Isn't the easy answer that the referee calls the ruck once it's formed, and no one else joins?

Or is that opening up other problems elsewhere?

Problem with any changes is that it's never two dimensional, change X so Y always causes Z.
For starters, that would almost completely prohibit counter rucking of slow ball.
I was fairly certain I was missing something, next question - is that bad or good - probably bad (monday nights are my friday nights though, so I' a couple of pints in) but proves the point regarding the laws, all multidimensional.
By ageinghoody
#40994
Carlos wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:53 pm
Isn't the easy answer that the referee calls the ruck once it's formed, and no one else joins?

Or is that opening up other problems elsewhere?

Problem with any changes is that it's never two dimensional, change X so Y always causes Z.
Beware The Law of Unintended Consequences, it can be a b****r! :lol
User avatar
By Yareet
#40997
Carlos wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:27 pm
Yareet wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:18 pm
Carlos wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:53 pm
Isn't the easy answer that the referee calls the ruck once it's formed, and no one else joins?

Or is that opening up other problems elsewhere?

Problem with any changes is that it's never two dimensional, change X so Y always causes Z.
For starters, that would almost completely prohibit counter rucking of slow ball.
I was fairly certain I was missing something, next question - is that bad or good - probably bad (monday nights are my friday nights though, so I' a couple of pints in) but proves the point regarding the laws, all multidimensional.
To be fair, that was my "Monday night, couple of glasses of wine" answer so more finesse was probably possible!

Reflecting more, I can see how your plan may be at odds with World Rugby's aim to create more space around the pitch.

If I knew that the oppo had the ball at a ruck and we couldn't add more players, I'd do the opposite - get everyone out and spread across the park.

At the moment, a team who are box kicking may have to contend with a big second row trying to pull more of the attacking team into the ruck. Or a counter ruck if they haven't quite secured the ball. Both of which suck defenders into the ruck.
By dinogyro
#41017
I do love a counter-ruck and I would like to see more of it.

But isn't this (laws/consequences) why Rugby Union is hellishly complicated? And one of the reasons I love it. As long as laws keep evolving, hopefully for the better, I am happy with that.

I see that seatbelt tackles are now allowed as long as they don't touch the head. Probably a good idea.

I would also like to see a law that allows a 'no knock-on' in the lineout. It would allow the defending team to disrupt and would be one less law to worry about. But I think I am getting way off topic now.

Buster

I doubt any backs will be looking to leave Quins[…]

Saracens (A) Challenge Cup

Well for those among you who are still doing permu[…]

Team S'Up vs Th'Ospreys

Only Dewi Lake and Adam Beard make the match day 2[…]